Chapter 4 of Argumentation and Critical Decision Making by Rieke, Sillars and Peterson teaches us that even though each argument is different than another and may appear in a different situation, most arguments can be diagrammed by what is called the Toulmin model. Developed by Stephen Toulmin, this model provides a visual breakdown of an argument’s structure and parts. It begins with the “claim” that is seeking adherence by the presenter. This is what the entire argument model revolves around. Next, the claim requires what is called “grounds” that basically means the reasoning of why the claim should gain adherence. In between the two the two, we are introduced to a “warrant”. This is information that provides more clarity to why the grounds support the claim. Both the grounds and warrant can be reinforced in the model by what is called “backing”. This is a fancy way of saying hard evidence such as quotes, specific data, etc. Last but not least, we have qualifiers and reservations/rebuttals. Qualifiers indicate how much force the argument holds. The book mentions that phrases “such as Certainly, possible, probably, for the most part, usually or always" are typically used (55). Reservation/rebuttals are counters to the claim proposed. All of these terms fit together into a thorough breakdown of an argument. The authors also mention that each argument does not require all of the parts to gain adherence.Personally, I found the backing to be most interesting in this model because I believe that concrete evidence is the most persuasive in any argument. For instance, we can argue that Apple laptops are more desirable than Windows laptops just based on the grounds of personal preference. However, when we start to provide backing in the form of sales statistics the argument becomes much more persuasive and likely to gain adherence.
Chapter five focuses primarily on identifying and developing propositions for problems that people think are relevant. It goes over 6 steps for choosing a valid proposition based on a perceived “feeling of doubt.” While all six steps may not be necessary, the collectively ensure a well thought out and firm proposition. The six steps include identifying the question, surveying implicated objectives (or understanding what is the goal accomplishment in regard to the question), searching for new information, considering alternative options, considering costs and risks of each potential proposition, and then finally choosing one of the propositions. The authors then go on to talk about analyzing and strengthening the proposition chosen. This includes identification and ranking of the issues that the proposition addresses as well as understanding how the decision makers will react to these issues and propositions. In general, with all these methods of critically analyzing the proposition, ...
I feel like our blog posts were very similar. I also broke down and defined each of the elements of the Toulmin Model, and all of my interpretations were pretty similar.
ReplyDeleteThere were, however, a couple little spots that made me stop to think for a second. First, when you were discussing the "warrant," I would have gone a bit further to explain that the warrant can clarify underlying societal assumptions, or truths for lack of a better term. It often holds the, usually unspoken in the argument, worldviews it is assumed the audience of the argument would relate to.
I'd also add, for qualifiers, that it can show how confident the speaker is in the argument, and how much they are willing to take responsibility if the audience follows the idea or action their argument presents.
Finally, I found it interesting how you seemed to view backing as the only solid source of support, while grounds were more of a personal preference. In my interpretation, I thought that grounds could be solid information and go beyond personal preference, but backing could make that even stronger. For example, a ground could be a statistic, and the backing could be a scholarly source that statistic comes from. Maybe I'm incorrect; I'm not sure after reading your interpretation.
Although I may have elaborated on some aspects and/or interpreted a few things differently, I think that you were correct and thorough in the information you presented in your blog post. :)